There are 34 comments on the
news.yahoo.com
story from Jan 11, 2013, titled French comedian rallies broad front against gay marriage.
In it, news.yahoo.com reports that:

When the opponents of gay-marriage take to the streets in Paris on Sunday, their protest will be led neither by politicians nor priests, but by a sassy comedian in a pink T-shirt who goes by the stage name Frigide Barjot.

With her on the march, expected to be one of the capital's biggest demonstrations in years, will be a young gay man who campaigns against homosexual marriage and an older activist from the right-to-life movement.

Notably absent will be most religious leaders who set the tone for the opposition with talking points based on social and legal arguments rather than appeals to faith.

"We're all born of a man and a woman, but the law will say the opposite tomorrow," says Barjot, warning the reform would break links between father, mother and children that ground human society. "It will say a child is born of a man and a man."

<quoted text>Old news and no longer a precedent to rely on considering the number of times DOMA and other laws that discriminate against us have been ruled unconstitutional in Federal Court.Let's wait till Perry is decided by SCOTUS OK? And the case from NY as well.

1. You just make this shit up dont you?2. Perry and the DOMA cases have no bearing on each other...

I cant wait for perry to be decided....and for you to call the court a bigot for holding consistent with its prior precedent...

<quoted text>1. You just make this shit up dont you?2. Perry and the DOMA cases have no bearing on each other...I cant wait for perry to be decided....and for you to call the court a bigot for holding consistent with its prior precedent...

There was a recent case in the US of a man, married and with several children who went to his doctor for a check-up due to some genital disturbance and upon careful examination was found to be, internally, a female.. He admitted he had always felt uncomfortable as a man but went along with accepted mores and was a good husband and father.. Upon this discovery he decided to become the woman he always felt to be and his family supports him one hundred per cent. He was, in fact, a hermaphrodite living as a man.. Nobody's arguing the fact that indeed it takes a man and a woman to make a child.. but it takes a hell of a lot more to make a marriage.. But ignorance will raise its ugly head and in this the french are just as bad as the Americans, the Argentinians, or whatever.. Nature cares very little for our moral codes..

<quoted text>federal law versus state law...read up on it, I am hardly the one to come up with this...and BTW, I did not cite loving, I cited to BAKER which discusses loving and says it does not speak to gay marriage...

wow. except you couldn't be more factual wrong..you are not making an argument, you are merely announcing your delusion...again, from the first circuit last year:http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl..."Baker is precedent binding on us unless repudiated by subsequent Supreme Court precedent. Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975). Following Baker, "gay rights" claims prevailed in several well known decisions, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S.620 (1996), but neither mandates that the Constitution requires states to permit same-sex marriages. A Supreme Court summary dismissal "prevent[s] lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions." Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977)(per curiam). Baker does not resolve our own case but it does limit the arguments to ones that do not presume or rest on a constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

"Baker does not resolve our own case but it does limit the arguments to ones that do not presume or rest on a constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

<quoted text>wow. except you couldn't be more factual wrong..you are not making an argument, you are merely announcing your delusion...again, from the first circuit last year:http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl..."Baker is precedent binding on us unless repudiated by subsequent Supreme Court precedent. Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975). Following Baker, "gay rights" claims prevailed in several well known decisions, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S.620 (1996), but neither mandates that the Constitution requires states to permit same-sex marriages. A Supreme Court summary dismissal "prevent[s] lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions." Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977)(per curiam). Baker does not resolve our own case but it does limit the arguments to ones that do not presume or rest on a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.""Baker does not resolve our own case but it does limit the arguments to ones that do not presume or rest on a constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

I refuse to accept that as a U.S. citizen, born withing the United States, that I have to prove to anyone the 14th Amendment should apply to me.

As I once asked another poster on here, when did being part of a protected class become a requirement to be treated like any other U.S. Citizen?

<quoted text>I refuse to accept that as a U.S. citizen, born withing the United States, that I have to prove to anyone the 14th Amendment should apply to me.As I once asked another poster on here, when did being part of a protected class become a requirement to be treated like any other U.S. Citizen?

also, is this your way of saying "I wasn't aware of this precedent, thank you"?

<quoted text>it does apply, and given you are not similarly situated, you don't get the same right...its that simple...and no, its no proof of animus or second class citizenship any more than a 17 year old GENIUS who still cannot vote...

Using that logic, the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to anyone other than straight white males.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.